Penna Dexter

An absurd phrase is used in the White House’s 2021 budget proposal: “birthing people.” It appears in a section dealing with funding to reduce maternal mortality, which is worse among black mothers. Senators tried to get clarification at a hearing. Oklahoma Senator James Lankford asked Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, “Can you help me get a good definition of ‘birthing people’? Secretary Becerra couldn’t — or wouldn’t — do it. “I’ll check on the language there, but I think if we’re talking about those who give birth, I think we’re talking about---” Here, he stopped, apparently at a loss, since they have obviously decided not to use the word, mothers. “I don’t know how to explain it to you--” then he stopped. He couldn’t spit it out. In the interest of some misguided brand of social justice, the administration is cancelling ‘mom’ in official documents. Senator Langford pressed the secretary: “Would you at least admit calling a mom a ‘birthing person’ could be offensive to some moms?” Once more, Becerra dodged, telling the senator, I’ll “get back to you. But again, we’re trying to be precise.” Precise? Senator Langford pointed out that, “’Mom’ is a pretty good word that’s worked for a while. And I think it’s pretty precise.” Progressive orthodoxy tells us that men can have babies so, to cover all possibilities, they coin confusing terms like “birthing people.” In a House Budget Committee hearing, Shalanda Young, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, was at least a bit more forthcoming in replying to a question about this terminology. She said, “There are certain people who do not have gender identities that apply to male and female, so we think our language needs to be more inclusive on how we deal with complex issues.” Rep. James Smith (MO) wondered if this term ‘birthing people’ will replace ‘woman,’ or ‘mother,’ going forward. The Congressman says they’re turning us into “crazy town.” He’s right.